The ruling strengthens equal protection rights.
While it is not actually in the United States constitution, one of the fundamental rights that Americans hold is a trial by a “jury of our peers” in criminal cases. Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted this right to a jury of our peers in different ways, expanding upon it in order to preserve our right and ensure that all Americans enjoy due process and equal protection under the law.
During the trial process, a pool of potential jurors is put together by the court system. Local citizens are randomly selected to form this pool, and through a process known as jury selection, a “jury of your peers” is selected. The judge, prosecutor and your criminal attorney in Los Angeles, CA will question the jurors and examine their backgrounds to determine if there is anything that may prejudice their judgment in the case. The prosecutor and the defense attorney can object to the inclusion of specific jurors in two ways: challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. Challenges for cause are exactly what they sound like — there has to be a reason for the challenge (for example, excluding a juror whose house was recently broken into in a burglary case). For peremptory challenges, the attorneys do not typically need to give a reason.
In the past, both prosecutors and defense attorneys have used peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race, gender and other attributes. But in a 1986 United States Supreme Court Case, Batson v. Kentucky, the Court held that while defendants in a criminal case have no right to have a jury composed wholly or partially of people of the same race, a prosecutor cannot exclude jurors simply because they are of the same race as the defendant. In Batson, the facts were particularly bad for the prosecutor, who had made notations next to the jurors’ names to show their race, and then challenged all of the Black jurors.
In June 2017, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding in Batson. In People v. Gutierrez, the prosecutor used 10 out of his 16 peremptory challenges on Latino jurors, thereby eliminating 10 out of the 12 Latino jurors in the jury pool. The California Supreme Court found that this practice violated equal protection, and reversed the conviction of the defendants in this case. According to the Court, trial courts must now question each reason that an attorney gives for striking a minority juror, decide whether the record supports it, and consider whether the stated reason applies equally to jurors who are not part of a racial minority.
This case could have major implications for all criminal cases that go to trial in California, as the makeup of a jury will often have a substantial impact on the outcome of a trial. A skilled criminal attorney in Los Angeles, CA should be aware of the changes to the law such as this recent case — and know how to apply the law to your case.
If you have been charged with a crime, contact the Chambers Law Firm at 714-760-4088 or dchambers@clfca.com. We will work with you to develop the best possible defense to the charges, and will protect your rights during jury selection and beyond. For a high quality criminal attorney in Los Angeles, CA, hire the Chambers Law Firm.
